Most of the Paluxy sites once claimed to contain human prints are outside DVSP, and have been shown to consist of a variety of misidentified phenomena (see the Paluxy web site). However, one of the "man track" sites called the "State Park Shelf" is next to the Main Site described above, on a shelf about a meter above the main track layer. Unlike other alleged "man tracks" outside the park, many of which are forms of elongate dinosaur tracks, the State Park Shelf markings are not prints of any kind, but rather are erosional markings and other irregularities of the rock surface. Often these were selectively highlighted with water or other substances during photography to encourage human shapes. However, without such selective highlighting their human resemblance is largely lost. Indeed, the entire shelf is covered with countless depressions of all shapes and sizes, but no distinct or convincing prints of any kind. In contrast, the nearby Main Site contains many well-preserved dinosaur tracks.

twinletkat wrote:I have a problem with this because bacteria and humans (or any other mammal) replicated completely differently. Bacteria have a much higher likelihood of passing on genetic mutations because of transformation, transduction, or conjugation. In humans or other mammals the cells are not simple replicated from the mother cell, but rely on a sperm and an ova to complete the new cell. Therefore, just because it may be easy for a bacteria to pass on mutations, there is no reason to claim the it is easy for higher organisms to pass on mutations.

Sure replication is different and there is no sex involved. Nevertheless, mutations in the eggs/sperms will be passed when they happen. In fact considering genome length, a few mutations per genome will happen and will be passed on the next generation.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Little Beaver said "...As I understand it, the point is that the mutations that do occur, and are able to be passed on to other generations and contribute to that species, could not be drastic enough to produce say a change in species because the foundational DNA for that particular animal is still there. A cat is not going to eventually evolve into a bird because it developes a mutation for a wing-like structure."

Your worry about how could small mutations lead to large morphological changes might be explained in: “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” by Sean B. Carroll who specialises in the new science of Evo Devo.

In a nutshell it explains how animals with very similar gene sequences are able to appear so different. Since most animals share similar proteins, it is not unexpected to find similar gene sequences between different species. A few key genes have been found to be involved at the embryonic stage of development. These genes are very similar between different species. What has been discovered is that some other genes act as “on” “off” switches and depending at what stage in the developing embryo the switches are “on” or “off” can make huge differences in the morphological appearance of the final product.

In my primitive mind I liken the embryo building genes as being like the 8 notes in the tonal scale on a piano. We all have the same 8 notes. But the difference we get in the final product (the tune) all depends on which notes are “on” and which are “off”. Knowing how many different tunes are available from just 8 notes shows just how much variation in morphology is possible by slight mutations affecting the genetic switches.

So having told you that you can’t expect to get a cat to appear with wings I now begin to wonder!

Evo-devo is one of the coolest for science since they invented "Just-add-water coffee". I have always been intrigued how these homeotic genes are able to direct the development of the organism. The best example is how a small mutation in the SRY gene will produce a XY person that is phenotipically female. Not to say that the direction in evolution is man ---> woman

"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

To respond to some previous posts: HGT may have proven to be a positive mutation for those particular bacteria, but would that mutation still prove beneficial if they were in a natural environment with other normal bacteria without antibiotic influence? The point remains that the bacteria did not mutate into a different microorganism…they remained bacteria with bacterial DNA. Drosophila did have drastic mutations but did they produce a more successful fly? If I was a human living at the same time period as dinosaurs, I would choose not to situate my home/family in a place that I thought could be compromised/eaten or otherwise destroyed by dinosaurs. And I find myself questioning the accuracy of cave drawings as a description of which animals existed in the past.

LittleBeaver quote "Drosophila did have drastic mutations but did they produce a more successful fly?"

I previously mentioned how small mutations affecting genetic switches could drastically affect the develoing embryo (Evo Devo) . I presume that your reference above refers to this. Mutations produced in the lab, just like random mutations produced in Nature, will not have any beneficial effects for Drosophila unless it produces an advantage vis a vis the environment and its ability to transmit this effect to the next generation. The techniques used in the lab are there to discover how mutations could have an effect, and are not designed to help Drosophila per se. So it would be rather surprising to find a benfit with such an experiment. However, if you were to suggest at the start of the experiment a hypothetical environmental scenario where limbs would be more useful than wings for survival and procreation and if this could be achieved in the lab – would you then be convinced that a benfit could arise from such mutations?

I cannot take seriously your statement on the accuracy of cave drawings. When I was young, I had the opportunity of visiting the caves of Lascaux (now closed to the public) and I can assure you that the drawings were superb and that no dinosaurs were represented. There may have been “religious” reasons why they only drew certain animals and not others but it had nothing to do with skill or accuracy of the artists. I think in this case you wold have argued better using religious reasons for the drawings depicted

Yes I was very lucky - as far as I can remember I must have been about 10 or 12 years old. Of course we didn't know at the time that the caves would become inaccessible to the public due to deterioration of the paintings with all those tourists breathing on them. But I do remember how strong the colors were - really impressive. Impossible to believe that they had been there for about 30,000 years.Unlike my photo prints with my ink jet printer which seem to start fading after about 2 years.

The point of my previous posts about dinosaurs existance with humans and the paintings are not the point that I was trying to make. The point is that just because there is no immediate and irrefutible evidence today that humans and dinosaurs walked together does not mean that it did not happen. Have not fisherman found various dinosaur-like aquatic animals that had not even decomposed enough to be older than humans? Dinosaurs put aside ... my goal is to make people look at true facts and then deduce what they believe. Not know what they believe and look for proof to back up their own hypothesis and assumptions.

Whatever you do, do it whole heartedly ... for laziness is what keeps us from changing anything and achieving what is truly great.